Worcester police start arresting panhandlers

The grace period is over for aggressive and persistent panhandlers violating the city ordinance that took effect in late January as four people were arrested this month.

Police officials said they had hoped they would not have to make any arrests, with the optimistic belief that education and publicity about the rules would lead to voluntary compliance.

In a couple of the arrests, police noted, the panhandlers have drug abuse issues. Police Chief Gary J. Gemme said it shows that some panhandlers are clearly begging for money to feed a drug addiction.

“When you look at it, some of these individuals had drug paraphernalia on them,” the chief said. “What does that tell you? They are not all out there looking for food.”

A review of the statement of facts in the arrests — one man was busted twice — shows that each person was warned several times about the city’s new panhandling ordinance.

The locations of the arrests are frequently used by panhandlers.

Robert A. Mele, 34, who lists his address as 701 Main St., the homeless shelter, was arraigned Monday in Central District Court for trespassing and violating the aggressive panhandling ordinance after he was found standing on the off-ramp to Interstate 290 eastbound in the Belmont Street area Saturday.

Police said in court records that Mr. Mele was told to stay off the ramp and not to violate the ordinance. He was released on personal recognizance in court and told to stay away from the off-ramp.

Michael P. Gorham, 51, of 11 Ellsworth St., Apt. 4, was arrested Sunday — which happened to be his birthday — for disorderly conduct and violating the aggressive panhandling ordinance.

Police said he was aggressively panhandling on Chandler Street and at first was told to leave. Officers saw him again walking in and out of traffic and arrested him. He was arraigned Monday and ordered held on $500 cash bail.

Andrew E. Gemme, no relation to the city’s police chief, was arrested twice within a few days for allegedly violating the ordinance.

Mr. Gemme, 33, of 37 Central Tree, Rutland, was arrested on March 9 after he was allegedly asking people for money near the Shaw’s Supermarket on Stafford Street. He allegedly approached customers leaving the supermarket as well, police said in court statements.

“In the days leading up to this incident police had encountered Gemme conducting this aggressive form of panhandling on several occasions in this area,” police wrote in a statement. “On more than one occasion Gemme was advised of the Worcester city ordinance prohibiting such behavior. Gemme was warned by police to cease his behavior.”

On March 14, Mr. Gemme was arrested again for violating the panhandling ordinance. Police said he was going in and out of store parking lots on Park Avenue. He was arraigned in court the same day and held on $500 cash bail. In another recent police statement involving Mr. Gemme’s arrest for disorderly conduct, officers noted Mr. Gemme has a heroin addiction and needs help.

Adam C. Lavalle allegedly had crack cocaine and heroin on him during his arrest on March 14, police reports show. The 29-year-old, who lists his home as 765 Main St., was arrested on charges of heroin possession, cocaine possession, disorderly conduct and violating the panhandling ordinance.

Police said he was walking in and out of traffic on Lincoln Street and was almost hit by a car. Holding a “homeless, please help” sign, Mr. Lavalle was warned by police in the past about panhandling. Police allegedly found a crack pipe with residue on him along with a small baggie of heroin. He was released on personal recognizance.

All of those arrested received continuance dates in court.

A judge ordered Mr. Lavalle not to panhandle in the city, according to a notation in the case file.

The judge’s order appears to recognize the city’s concern over the public safety issue, Chief Gemme said.

Judges taking the ordinance seriously could help make police officers’ jobs easier because panhandlers will again get the message in court, he said. “The reality is I was hoping we didn’t make any arrests.”

He hoped the department’s strategy of educating panhandlers and handing out information with phone numbers where people could receive help would result in voluntary compliance.

“It was my goal to accomplish this through education,” he said.

In some cases people take the help and some don’t. Having panhandlers with drug issues in the court system also could place them in court-ordered services, the chief said.

City Councilor William J. Eddy, chairman of the Committee on Public Safety, said the chief and Police Department’s approach to enforcing the ordinance was balanced.

“Worcester police have not gone real aggressive on this,” Mr. Eddy said. “The chief has a clear understanding of the needs of these people and would really like to see them helped rather than arrested.”

City councilors understand that some of these people need help and they want to get panhandlers off the streets and into services, Mr. Eddy said.

“No one wakes up in the morning and says they want to be a professional panhandler,” he said.

On his regular driving route near Lincoln Square there have been fewer panhandlers, the city councilor said. There used to be panhandlers on all four medians every day, he said.

The new ordinance doesn’t ban panhandling, but restricts where it can be done, including medians. Anyone found guilty of violating the ordinances can be punished by a fine of up to $50, or the court can impose community service.

Aggressive panhandling has been defined as touching a person, blocking a roadway or vehicle or using violent gestures or profane language.

Community activist Scott Schaeffer-Duffy, who was part of a recent protest against the ordinance, called the arrests ridiculous. The ordinance was simply an attempt to push panhandlers out of the city to other towns, he said. The notion of aggressive panhandlers is also a farce, he said.

“I’ve never seen it,” Mr. Schaeffer-Duffy said. “The Worcester panhandlers I’ve seen just hold a sign. Many say thank you.”

He said the ordinance flies in the face of people’s right to assembly. Existing laws for disorderly conduct or jaywalking can also be used if safety is a concern in some of these panhandling cases, he said.